•Pension Boards: Unanimous vote and Board policy

When is a unanimous vote
by a duly appointed Board or Commission not become the policy of that
Board?(Statement to City Council, April 25, 2011)

When is a unanimous vote
by a duly appointed Board or Commission not become the policy of that
Board?

I can think of no
instance in which this would be the case, but it has been for the Uniformed
Pension Board as of last January 25, 2011… Boards, which manage $40M for the
city.As of this very minute and
in spite of multiple requests from a Trustee of the Pension Board to adhere to
Board Policy, the acting secretary of that very important Board either refused
to or has failed to follow Board policy.

Perhaps I should go back
to the beginning and explain.On
November 9, 2010 the Uniformed Pension Board met to correct a motion they had
passed at their previous meeting, which contained an illegal provision.That vote was unanimous. AFTER that
meeting was adjourned, the chair convened an “informal meeting" between
herself, an employee representative (a voting Board member), Ms. Watson, the Treasurer
and acting secretary of the Board (a non-voting Board member), and Mr. Glickert the Council Liaison to the
Board (a non-voting Board member) to make a policy decision to add an executive summary authored by the
Employee Representative and attach it to the ordinance that would go to the
Council for a vote on Dec. 13, 2010.Of the 7 voting members of this Board, only two were present when this
policy was decided and carried out.This is a violation of the Sunshine Law on many levels (see explanation below).

About 36 hours later, the
Chair first sent an email to the rest of the Board first informing them that
this policy had been decided in “an informal discussion" – and that the summary
would be prepared for their review and POTENTIAL approval.In the investment industry the word
potential means there are no guarantees, and indeed, no members of the Board
ever saw, let alone approved the attachment to the ordinance of this position
statement – the Executive Summary.

From this moment on, I
personally witnessed the anguish that one Board member experienced with a very
flawed and misrepresented position put forth to the Council – what to do
considering that he felt this was a violation of ethics in a field in which he
had been a conscientious and honest broker for over 25 years – not to mention the legal
implications.

As the fates would have
it, citizens and some board members strongly objected to the contents of the
ordinance and executive summary by an employee and the City Manager pulled the
bill (link). Where it is now, we do not know.The story does not end here.

In an effort to
accurately document what happened the Uniformed Pension Board voted unanimously to append (audio available) -without an explanation of the Chair’s intent - the emails from the Chair along
with the executive summary that had been prepared by the employee
representative under the direction of the chair – but never seen or approved by
the board – and the following emails from Ms. Watson and the Chair with
follow-up explanations.

Having passed, this
became board policy, yet in spite of repeated requests it has not been posted;
the chair sent an email thanking this trustee for his input on “these issues,”
and stated, “Due to their complexity and the limitations of email, I recommend
we move this discussion to our next Board meeting....” He wrote to Mr. Walker who is
the official Secretary of the Pension Boards by ordinance – and to date he has
received no answer at all… imagine the City Manager failing to respond to a
Trustee of the Pension Boards!The
documents are still not appended to the Nov. 9, 2011 minutes posted on the
website – and the policy of the board is still not been manifested.It should be done post haste!

The State Auditor cited
University City for its failure to maintain minutes of Boards of
Commissions.In many cases, they
are so lacking in detail of what actually took place that they fail to provide
an accurate record of the proceedings.Maybe this is passable for some boards and commissions, but for these Boards,
which are not advisory to the Council and administer $40M, it is
inexcusable.In this day and age
of technology, it is easy to record a meeting.In this special case for these boards, I would recommend
that they hire a stenographer or court reporter – Ms. Watson has way too much
on her plate to handle this in a timely and accurate manner… and it needs to be
done.

There are problems with
these Boards, not the least of which is finding qualified citizens to
serve.When it takes repeated
effort to get the acting secretary to manifest board policy, when the chair
overrides board members when speaking, and establishes policy without the
participation and knowledge of a quorum of the board – and when this general
stress and unpleasantness threatens the professional standing of a potential
member – you will not find ready volunteers to serve on these Boards.I encourage the council to attend these
Pension Board Meetings and when they cannot, to request the audio from ucitycitizen.
org or directly from me…. The Council's oversight is necessary – after all, these Boards
theoretically manage $40M for the City!

Paulette Carr, Gannon Ave.

Explanation of the violation of the Sunshine Law:

With regard to what constitutes a meeting, the Sunshine Law booklet on page 13 (I have also attached that for you to read) states:"Technically, the sunshine Law defines a "meeting" as a majority or quorum of the members of the public governmental body (RSMo §610.010(5). Thus, if less than a quorum of the body meets to discuss public business, it is not a "meeting" under the definition of the Sunshine Law. However, it is important to note without a quorum present, no real decision making may take place..."

Unfortunately, there was a real decision made in that "informal meeting" without a quorum present (only 2 of 7 voting members were present) after the Board meetings had been adjourned; The decision was to attach an executive summary to the ordinance without the knowledge of and vote of the rest of the Board in a properly convened meeting. It is the making of a decision, which was not allowed without a quorum present that is the problem.

On
January 25, the Uniformed Pension Board Unanimously voted to append the
following documents without explanation to the November 9, 2011
meeting minutes. An audio of the vote is available [Link]. To date they are not appended to the meeting minutes of Nov. 9, 2010:

NOTE: AS OF MAY 10, 2011 THE ATTACHMENTS HAVE NOW BEEN APPENDED TO THE MINUTES OF THE NOV. 9, 2011 MEETING